Ep. 598 The Liberal Attack Machine Has Come for Me, Here’s Why
The Clinton attack machine is upset at my latest media appearance.
http://ijr.com/2017/11/1022721-ex-secret-service-agent-rips-clintons-calls-hillary-deceptive-human-hes-met/
Entitlements are a horrendous deal for younger Americans.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453543/social-security-millennials-bad-deal-no-choice
The Obamacare scam continues.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-death-payments-1511465449
The NFL keeps setting the bar lower.
https://t.co/WbpUBz0kqX
What is George Soros doing with this 18 billion dollars?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/18/george-soros-gives-18-billion-dollars-open-society-foundation
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
I'm doing well, man.
Day after Thanksgiving recovery.
Yeah, I didn't eat too much last night.
I usually...
Yeah, I usually overwhelm my gastrointestinal system with edible delights, but I went kind of easy yesterday.
You know what it is?
In the morning, I had an entire pound of bacon and six eggs.
Jeez!
That's a true story, by the way.
That's pretty much a common breakfast for me when I go crazy.
And I wasn't hungry, understandably, for the rest of the day.
It's one of the things I love about eating tons of fat without carbs.
It fills you up forever.
So I try not to eat too much fat in the mornings.
I try to keep it for the night.
But yesterday, my wife was like, you want bacon?
I'm like, heck yeah.
So I wasn't really that hungry for dinner.
And I ate a little bit, not too much.
I'll have some more today.
You know, it's the leftovers after Thanksgiving that are just as good as the actual meal.
In my, I-M-H-O, in my humble opinion, of course.
All right.
So, uh, a lot to talk about.
So this is interesting.
So I do this hit on, uh, hit that's like media jargon for media appearance on Fox on Wednesday night, the night before Thanksgiving.
I do it on Tucker's show.
Brian Kilmeade's filling in and it's about the Clintons and a mom with this Robin Pirro guy who I had never met before, but you know, liberal, but nice enough guy.
Didn't seem too toxic.
And I was, Brutally honest about the Clintons.
I said my experience in politics, she is the most deceptive, manipulative person I've ever met.
And I meant every word of it.
Now folks, of course the Clinton machine, as I suspected, and I told my wife before I go, you realize after I do this hit, like the Clinton machine is going to come out and go on attack mode because that's what they do.
And hey, listen, that's fair.
I hit her, she can hit back.
But I feel like I owe you all an explanation, and I even took a note on this.
I put, listen, point one, you know, why talk about the Clintons?
I completely understand how many of you, even in my listening audience, may say, well, you know, being in the Secret Service carries with it like an omerta, right?
You know, a certain degree of, hey, we keep quiet.
Yeah, I agree.
I concur with you.
You're not wrong.
But the reason I hesitated is it's a, it's not a, we keep quiet no matter what.
I mean, can we all agree on that, Joe?
Like, if you're a Secret Service agent, you obviously don't want to talk about, like, you know, hey, you know, Hillary Clinton picks her nose.
She doesn't.
But you get what I'm saying?
Like, that's not, that's just petty nonsense.
But you definitely don't keep quiet if you were to say, like, say President X in the future, whatever, we don't know who it may be, but if he were to be involved in some kind of situation where he was caught stealing money from the U.S.
Treasury, Can we all agree like you're under no obligation or moral obligation, ethical obligation or legal obligation to keep quiet about witnessing actual crimes in front of you, right?
Yeah, I agree with that.
Now, whereas I can't conclusively prove a legal case against this woman right now, I've said to you multiple times that people have come to me with damning information over the last few years about the Clintons on a situation with a police officer in Washington, D.C., on Bill Clinton and his activities post office, let's say, on the email situation, which I have discussed.
You know, I have a personal source on that that's devastating.
That folks, I would be doing you and the country a disservice if I didn't let you know who this woman was.
So this guy Nick Maryland, I never heard of this guy before, it's funny because he goes on full attack mode, I'm assuming at the direction of someone in the Clinton camp, like, hey you need to discredit this guy.
So just to be clear, I go on the media a prime time on Tucker's show, Kill Me, and I make a couple points.
She's deceptive, she's manipulative, and she's been a destructive force in American politics based on information I have from unimpeachable sources.
Unimpeachable media... Sorry, that's my daughter.
She's hanging out with me in the office tonight.
You hear that little bit in the background, right?
Mimi, you with me today?
I know stuff, folks.
I know stuff from, again, unimpeachable sources.
People who were there, who actually saw it, who have no- matter of fact, not only they- don't you find it a little bit ironic that they don't talk publicly?
They talk to me, but they don't talk publicly because many of them, some of them have left, some of them are still inside, the ones inside are afraid of losing their jobs right now, and the ones on the outside are afraid of being attacked because they have Business dealings are afraid of losing their livelihoods.
Now you can judge them however you make sure.
It's not for me to judge them.
I'm telling you this.
I know the information.
They know the information.
It is not my information to give out publicly because they entrusted me with it under the condition that I not share a lot of it yet.
Now, for those of you who listen to my show regularly, You know I don't say things I can't back up.
If we say something, and we have in the past that have been mistakes, we've gone back and we've corrected it.
Happens all the time.
Even the best, I'm not a journalist, I don't claim to be a journalist, but even the best journalists in the world who are supposed to deal in facts make mistakes at times.
I'm not even a journalist and I go back and correct stuff because I think it's the right thing to do to maintain a high degree of credibility of my listening audience.
I'm telling you, As friends of mine, for those of you who've emailed me to this show, I feel like you're family at this point.
I know history is not going to be kind to the Clintons.
Because I know the people that know the things I'm telling you, that have seen it, that have witnessed it, that have been there.
And I know at some point, someone's going to talk.
They're understandably cautious now.
But I know they're going to talk.
I wouldn't put it out on social media, on my show, which is recorded forever.
We don't delete episodes.
Even episodes where I've said things I've regretted, we don't delete them.
We don't delete episodes, folks.
I'm saying this now because I'm absolutely confident that history is going to open the books on the Clintons and it is not going to be good.
I'm telling you, you don't know the half of it on some of those stories out there.
Emailgate.
The Epstein situation.
The police officer situation.
You don't know the half of it.
So this guy Nick Merrill, M-E-R-R-I-L-L, decides he's going to be the consigliere Clinton capo to come after me and try to discredit me.
So he makes two points in a tweet.
He says, number one, I worked with the Clintons and they had nothing but respect for the Secret Service.
Well, listen, I've I wouldn't say Bill was necessarily an awful person to work with.
I may disagree with his politics and the way he handled himself, but I've never spun your wheels on that and said he's been terrible.
I don't recall ever saying that on the show.
If I had, correct me.
No, I think you've said just what you're saying now.
No.
Yeah, he was never rude or obnoxious to anyone.
Again, I disagree with the man's politics, but I'm never going to lie to you.
Either was Obama.
Matter of fact, you read my Wikipedia page, of all things, which is run by leftists.
Even they acknowledge, like, well, Dan's defended Obama against birther stuff and other things.
I mean that's on Wikipedia, which is like, oh he's dying to crush conservatives.
Hillary was not respectful to the secret service.
Maybe isolated agents here and there are fewer who are still afraid of losing their jobs, but I'm telling you as a pattern, you talk to people who work with Hillary, who I do, and there's a good large swath of them, not all, there's never all of anything.
You ask kids if they want homework, there's always one kid that raises their hand.
A large swath of secret service agents, especially female secret service agents, who I know, who have shared with me multiple times what an awful person she was.
And I tweeted out, I know one specific one that almost quit the job rather than get back in the Scooby-Doo van with her.
I was there!
I remember it.
I remember being on the phone when it happened.
I shouldn't say I was there when, I was there on the phone when it happened, to be clear.
Especially with these Clinton animals.
So he makes two points.
Oh, she respects Senator, and they, they, whatever, they loved her.
Um, no.
That is actually not true.
It was a pattern of disrespect.
Followed by isolated examples of respect, Joe.
Not a pattern of respect followed by isolated examples of disrespect.
You see the difference?
Sure do, yeah.
So Nick, you're wrong on that.
But again, you know what?
Number one, to be fair to Nick, that's a matter of opinion.
Nick doesn't know much.
He's a young tyke.
He's been around for a little while in the later years of the Clintons.
Maybe what he saw, he's going to defend the boss.
Okay, it's number two that bothers me.
He makes another point in his tweet.
So number one, I'll give the guy a pass even though he's wrong.
He says, listen, I never saw this guy.
He never worked with the Clintons.
Uh, wait, really?
Now, Joe knows me personally as a friend, not just through the show.
I don't even know how to respond to that.
So what do you want me to do?
So here's what I said.
I sent back a tweet to young Nick who hasn't responded back yet.
I said, wow, that's fascinating considering that I have literally, not figuratively, literally hundreds of official government documents.
They're not classified or anything, but literally hundreds of documents showing my workload with the Clintons, with Bill and Hillary.
But with Hillary, it was extensive.
I also sent him a picture from the back cover of New York Newsday, one of the big papers, liberal papers up there in New York, of a picture of me with Hillary at the U.S.
Open in 2001.
Now I have other photos as well.
Unfortunately, I can't find some of them.
I was trying to look.
I'm like, I know I got more of these.
But the paperwork?
It's official government paperwork.
Dan Bongino, Hillary Clinton.
It's not a mistake.
So folks, My point in this whole thing is not to pat myself on the back, oh, I worked with Hillary.
It was not the proudest time in my life, believe me.
I'm just telling you, this is what the Clinton machine does.
They go after people.
They never go after any... Notice, he hasn't responded yet to any of my tweets where I said, are you sure about that Epstein plane?
You sure about those BlackBerries?
You sure they were all destroyed?
What about the government property?
Was there any of that in there?
Joe, I'm winking and nodding right now.
What about that incident with the cop?
Hmm.
What about that one?
Was that evidence of her respect for law enforcement?
What about that stuff?
Notice he hasn't answered any of that.
Why?
If it didn't happen, just answer it, right, Joe?
Well, he can't.
Folks, these people, I'm telling you, the Clintons, and so the why talk, I just want to end with that.
Again, why talk about this stuff?
Folks, you have a woman out there trying to upend the Constitutional Republic.
She is out there trying to discredit a major American election.
Discredit a political wave that overtook the country in the Trump election.
She is trying to discredit it and at the same time upend the Republic as we know it.
So let me get this straight.
Your principals, Nick Merrill, former Clinton acolyte, bootlicker.
Your principals are what?
That she gets a free pass to go out there and using her enormous platform, far bigger than mine, Joe.
She gets to go out there and destroy the country and try and upend confidence in the American institutions.
They get to take power and corruptly abuse power.
And we're all supposed to just sit back, who saw it, and take it?
No.
No, no, no.
And folks, listen, I'm not being hyperbolic or, you know, melodramatic about this, but I know I take some risk on here.
I'm not worried about these people like, you know, oh Dan, are you going to get suicided?
Someone sent me that.
Are you going to get suicided?
You know, like the sad ongoing joke about the Clintons, everybody involved with the Clintons dying off eventually.
Seriously, I'm not, that's, I'm not worried about it.
Are you going to meet somebody in Marcy Park?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
That's not to be dramatic about.
I'm not worried about it.
But I am.
I do worry at times because I know the Clinton attack machine is very powerful in conjunction with their media people.
And I know they're going to come after me and I knew they were going to come after me after that hit.
But I'm ready, folks.
I'm ready for this fight.
I was born for it.
And I'm ready to continue it no matter the consequences because I know how damaging the Clintons are to the continuance of American faith in our institutions in the Constitutional Republic.
I'm ready for this fight, so thank you to everyone who has been supporting me and who helped me out on Twitter and who's helped me out on social media with this clown, because he's completely, entirely inaccurate.
Saying I didn't work for the Clintons is, I mean, it's just so easily refutable that it just goes to show you the desperation mode they're in now.
Let's not refute the accusations show, let's go attack the guy, which is just really horrifying.
All right.
I tease this, you never tease a sponsor, right?
But I was super stoked to get these guys and ladies on board from this really terrific company.
It's a new sponsor alert.
We need like a jingle for that.
New sponsor alert, like ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
You know, just do it.
Because I'm really, they keep the show free for you folks.
And I really want to continue that.
I'd hate to go, you know, my subscriber only route, at least on the podcast, that gets a little tougher with their video content.
I like to keep it free and they're on board and the company is ManCrate.
Now, why am I stoked to have them on board?
What's a ManCrate?
Well, my wife hates, absolutely doesn't dislike doesn't not want to tolerate absolutely hates buying gifts for me because it's it's unbelievably hard to get the perfect gift for a guy and it's easy to get it completely wrong now to be fair i've screwed this up for my wife too i got her fax machine once and she was ready to kill me she almost hit me with the fax machine i'm just kidding but i did not the story's true she almost hit me with the fax machine
It's really, really hard to get gifts for guys.
Now, it's Black Friday.
I know you must be thinking about the holidays coming up.
I am imploring you to go check these guys out, all right?
We're introducing mancrates.com.
This is the surest way to find gifts that guys will actually love, guaranteed.
This isn't some cheesy Cheese of the Month Club or a new tie.
Mancrates offers over a hundred Hand curated gift collections for every type of guy from the rugged outdoorsman to the sports fanatic and everything in between.
Let me give you some examples, Joe.
Because I didn't tell Joe, right?
I didn't tell you before the show.
No, you didn't.
He was like, what is it?
What is it?
What is it?
I'm like, no, no.
I want a live reaction from you, Mike.
I can't tell you.
They have the whiskey appreciation crate, Joe, with a personalized decanter and glasses for your favorite trick.
Or the grill master crate with a brass knuckle meat tenderizer and a cast iron smoker box.
Dude!
Rob Schneider, 65 ways to call a dude.
Who doesn't want that?
Go to mancrates.com, pick the perfect crate.
They have tons of them.
Joe, my personal favorite.
They have the salami bouquet.
You don't get a bouquet of flowers.
You get a bouquet of salami.
They have bacon kits.
They have everything.
When the crate arrives, it comes with a crowbar, Joe.
It's laser engraved.
I'm not kidding.
This is not a joke.
You will crowbar open your own man crate.
You gotta check out the gift wrapping, by the way.
That's a surprise.
Go to the website, you'll see it.
Men's Health and Allure Magazine are saying man crates are the perfect gift for men, and those two really seriously don't agree on anything.
They have thousands of five-star reviews, and every man crate comes with 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Folks, own the holidays.
Go to mancrates.com slash Dan, and this is, folks, they don't do this.
They told me on the phone, they don't discount their stuff.
They don't need to.
But if you go to mancrates.com slash Dan, you'll get 5% off your order.
They don't offer anywhere else this discount.
That's 5% off at mancrates.com slash Dan.
That's mancrates.com slash Dan.
Sorry about the long read.
I know folks, everybody.
Hates advertising, but this is a great company.
My wife saw it.
She's like, you have got to get these guys on board.
It's the coolest thing ever.
mancrates.com.
Go check it out.
And seriously, own the holidays.
Thanks, folks.
Thanks for sticking with us there.
All right.
Getting back to the content here, I really cannot get over this story.
I'm sorry.
I know you should never go back and double down on stupid with stories, but this one is such a doozy because it just sums up I know I say that a lot, but it's so easy to find.
It sums up liberal failure.
And by liberal failure, to be clear what I mean is, as I've said repeatedly, it's not just that liberalism...
Doesn't help people.
What we would call in, you know, ethics, an issue of misfeasance.
It's that liberalism actively hurts people, what we would call malfeasance.
It makes an effort to actually damage and hurt people's lives.
And I talked about last week, Joe, remember the story about readmission rates in Obamacare?
Yeah.
How Obamacare had instituted this readmission guideline.
And in the readmission guideline, it wasn't only not helping, it was actually killing people.
Or at least correlated with a higher death rate.
So the journal has another piece out today.
It may be subscriber only.
I included it in there, but I'll read to you some of it from there because it's really, really a good piece.
This is insane.
Let me just sum up.
The Journal of American Medicine, right, just did a study.
This is not a right-wing outlet.
It's the JAMA, the Journal of American Medical Association.
Right, Joe?
Okay.
They just released this study.
The study was on the readmission thing, and here's the readmission thing.
Obamacare wrote into the law that hospitals will be graded on a curve on their readmissions back to the hospital within a 30-day period, meaning if you were released from the hospital and readmitted, you would be penalized in your payments from the government for Medicare and other types of things, other kind of government payment systems, right?
So just to be clear, Joe, you're running a hospital, your hospital treats whatever, Joey bag of donuts for a heart condition, He's released two weeks later.
He's readmitted to the hospital.
You would be penalized by the government get less money be clear on that, right?
So now in again in the liberal universe of government planning and and and never you know, never jumping to second-order thinking thinking just first-order thinking which is simple thinking the liberal said Joe.
Well, I got an idea.
Let's use government payments like Medicare payments and those types third-party payer payments from the government to penalize hospitals that have to readmit patients under the theory that if they have to readmit them, they're probably not doing a good job.
Now, liberals, stop right there.
This is where the serious thinkers take over, and this is where you tune out.
Because that's all you need.
Liberals do first-order thinking only.
They never ever do second-order thinking where they think, well, what happened next?
They don't do any of that, Joe.
So what actually happened?
Liberals are actually, unbelievably, as I underlined here, celebrating their readmissions have fallen, Joe.
As I said last week, wow, big success.
I'm repeating this for a reason.
They're like, oh gosh, readmissions have fallen to 18.4% from 20%.
18.4% from 20%!
Money, money, money, money!
Money!
Money!
This is where I needed you for that, Joe.
Totally.
Because Joe is actually a singer.
Joe, we need to get some Joe tracks in the show.
Maybe for Christmas we'll do like a... What do you think?
You know what, audience?
Send me an email on that.
Would you like to hear like a quick 30-second jingle for Joe from Christmas?
This guy's quite talented, by the way.
You've done some stuff for CBM, right?
We'll make up some kind of a Bongino jingle for Christmas or something.
Yeah, yeah.
I think the audience would love... Send me an email.
I'll forward them on to Joe.
DanielatBongino.com.
Joe is actually pretty good.
Thank you.
I put it in caps here, Joe.
Get money!
Readmission went down.
Again, liberals, stop thinking now.
Tune out the show.
You don't need to hear any more of this.
The government gave the money and readmissions went down.
Um, except the fact that 5,400 more people died last year, potentially correlated to this policy.
Causal?
We don't know.
It's tough to prove causation.
But at a minimum, we know 5,400 more people died.
So don't worry, Libs, you got more money, you got a big government plan in Obamacare, and you get to claim success even though you actually might have killed people in doing it.
Now, how do we know that?
Because the mortality rate, Joe, as we said last week, jumped from 8.6 to 7.2 percent.
Mortality rate, as Joe looked up in Steve's dictionary last week, meaning more people died.
Now, there are a number of theories why that is, and as I said last week, and I'm setting you up for something here, though, because the journal makes a really good point.
I'm gonna read from it because it's fascinating.
It just goes to show you liberal stupidity at its best.
Well, at its worst, really, for you.
At its best for them, worst for us.
Folks, When you set up a set of incentives by government planners not based on customer satisfaction, in other words, the free market is based on customer satisfaction, Joe.
You go to a hospital because it's a good hospital.
Yeah.
When the government sets up a set of incentives for things not based on customer satisfaction, satisfying your customer but satisfying the government, So are we clear?
You're satisfying the government incentive, not the customer anymore.
What happens?
Well, the hospital games the system just to meet the metric.
The metric is low readmission rates.
So as I had a doctor, I'm, you know, I'm not going to say his name because I'm pretty sure he said not to, I'm not going to say anything else about him, but he said to me, Hey, my hospital, they're just, they're, they're, they're not even admitting people at all.
Because if you're not admitted, you can't be readmitted.
Bingo!
Bingo!
So what happens?
You go home and... Holy cow!
What's that?
Was it Sanford and Sonjoe?
I'm coming for you?
Elizabeth!
Elizabeth, yes.
Elizabeth, I'm coming for you.
It's Red Fox, right?
Right, right.
Yeah.
Elizabeth, I'm coming for you.
So that's what happens.
He goes home and he really does come for Elizabeth because he dies.
Or she, because they were never admitted to the hospital.
Folks, this is serious stuff.
5,400 more deaths attributed to this last year because of these readmission scams.
Now, why is this a big deal?
Because as the journal, He eloquently points out, and I think this is really good, let me just read to you quickly what they say and what their point is at the end, and I'll sum it up for you, showing again how liberal planning will literally kill you.
It says, Obamacare effectively enrolled Medicare patients in hospitals without their consent, Joe, in a mandatory policy experiment.
They're talking about this readmission experiment, right?
They said, you'll be better off, trust us.
But then they neglected to evaluate the adverse effects.
A drug trial with the same results would have been shut down long ago.
The JAMA researchers, Joe, concluded that, like drugs and devices, public health policies, this is me at IE Obamacare, Should be tested in a rigorous fashion, most preferably in randomized trials before their widespread adoption.
Sounds like good advice, but not the sort that Obamacare architects and masters of the economic planning universe like Orszag and Gruber would prefer.
Folks, think about what this is a really brilliant observation that I missed in the earlier show this week when we discussed this policy portion of Obamacare.
Liberals are so obsessed With globalization and national government planning on a mass level, that they're not even willing to see the ramifications of what they think is a good idea on the local level first before they force everyone to do it.
You see where I'm going with this, Joe?
If liberals thought this was really a good idea, why not say, let's test a pilot program out in, say, New York first, right?
with this readmission thing and see what happens.
Liberals can't do that because why folks?
People can escape New York just like Snake Plissken and they don't want that.
Liberals are obsessed with globalization and liberals are absolutely obsessed with the idea of forcing everyone to be subjected to their horrible policy prescriptions.
So they rolled it out on a national level with almost no input from the public just to make sure you would all be in service to their big grand planning ideas.
Even JAMA, the Journal of American Medicine, which is not, again, a right-leaning organization, has clearly stated that this was a mistake.
I just read to you what they said.
That's their quote, not mine.
That maybe we should have tried this on a smaller scale first.
This policy, in addition to the double-digit hike in premiums, to the hiking of deductibles, the shrinking of doctor networks, Obamacare has been the greatest legislative disaster in the past 50 years, possibly since the New Deal.
And liberals will still defend it, Joe, despite the fact that, quite literally, there is a correlation with people dying because of it.
They don't care.
Those are the numbers, folks.
Whether those numbers are uncomfortable for you or not, that's your problem, that's not mine.
But those are the numbers.
I know they're disturbing.
But, you know, I get it.
I mean, I know liberals.
I know how they are, Joe.
You're just gonna tune out.
Okay, another great piece I read in the Wall Street Journal about the net neutrality scam.
This is something I've covered pretty extensively over the past couple days, and I've covered it in the past.
I'm getting a lot of emails still about net neutrality.
One of the points I made in the last few shows is that since net neutrality, which is this idea that the government needs to treat a bit as a bit as a bit, right?
Everything on the internet should be treated equally, which by the way is a communist socialist idea.
How this is being defended, by the way, by some conservatives is beyond me.
But there's another good piece in the journal today about a couple points I brought up last week, just to reiterate where we were.
That since The government mandated price controls for internet services, which is ridiculous, by the way.
Broadband investments dumped 6%, and zero rating was attacked, meaning there were internet-based technology companies that wanted to give away their products for free on the internet, their data, and the government said no.
So that should be telling to you that the first attack on customers was an attack on free services, folks.
They bring up one point in this piece that I wanted to bring up for you today because I neglected to talk about it in last week's show.
Folks, it's fascinating that net neutrality would essentially ban what they call paid prioritization, Joe.
Now, we have a name for that in, you know, freedom-loving people.
It's called economic freedom and liberty.
You could call it capitalism.
I would argue to you that capitalism isn't an ism at all.
the ability to trade your labor for a wage, to own property yourself, and to have products priced by
a price mechanism, not by the government. I don't know if that's an -ism, that's more indicative
of economic freedom. Now, paid prioritization is economic freedom. What is paid prioritization?
Again, I use the example of, you know, first class airline services. I mean, there's all
kinds of examples of this, where people pay more money for a bigger hotel suite in a hotel.
Is that not paid prioritization?
Yeah.
Of course it is.
It's to say you're prioritizing something at a greater expense to you over something else.
You want a 3,000 square foot hotel suite in the Bellagio?
You're going to pay for it.
Folks, that's called paid prioritization too.
Now, they make a really interesting point on this.
They ban this over the internet under the guise that the internet is somehow different, which it's not.
And they say, well, here's the perverse side effect of this, Joe.
You know who's getting hurt by this?
Telemedicine.
Telemedicine.
You say, well, Joe, what does this have to do with paid prioritization of anything?
Exactly what I was going to say, yeah.
Yeah, and I thought, this is a brilliant example.
I should have brought it up on the show.
Telemedicine, in other words, the idea that a doctor can kind of Skype into you and check out your symptoms, and maybe for simple stuff, you know, flus and colds and things like that, you know, some minor skin rash or whatever, and can then prescribe without you having to go to the office.
Telemedicine was hoping to be able to prioritize their traffic because sometimes it may be an emergency.
In other words, Joe, let's say you're Skyping in, a guy thinks he's got the flu and he goes, hey, and I got this big hole in my chair.
What?
Get to the doctor right away.
They want to be able to prioritize that traffic a little bit, the telemedicine people.
And a journal makes a good point that, but why not?
Why should they take a backseat to the guy next door watching porn?
No, no, I'm dead serious.
Why should we attribute communist economic principles?
Everyone should be treated fairly.
It's not about being treated fairly.
It is fair to allow people to pay for services that they prioritize.
That's fair.
Not the government instituting a price cap on things.
Are you telling me?
Now again, I get it that we're using a kind of exaggerated example here for effect.
I understand that.
I acknowledge that.
Point stipulated, okay?
And I don't like to do that often.
But it's not a hyperbolic one.
It's maybe at the peak of, okay, because then you may say, well, you know, what about if, you know, this company, whatever it may be, you know, Joey's Donut Shop prioritizes its traffic over Joey's Crab Shop on the internet.
And you may, well, is that just going to benefit wealthy companies?
I get it.
I understand that argument.
I'm not suggesting to you either, Joe, to be fair, that that's not an issue.
All right.
I'm just suggesting to you the government can't fix that issue any more than it can fix the guy who wants to buy a first-class airline seat.
What are you going to make the government put price controls on airline seats?
Oh, they had that once.
By the way, it was Jimmy Carter who got rid of that nasty disaster.
A liberal democrat because it was a disaster.
Overly regulated airlines and terminal space.
Folks, the government doesn't have the solution here.
And that's why I gave that example specifically.
The government is now mandating, in a worst case scenario, that telemedicine be subjected to the same data restrictions and government rules as internet pornography.
I'm not kidding.
That's not fair.
The government is not the answer here.
The market will figure it out.
If companies en masse are being discriminated against, air quotes Joe, by ISPs and internet service providers, they're going to find a different way to get you that information.
The government is not the answer here.
And as we've seen by the dump and 6% drop in broadband investment, because these companies can't make any money, and the ban on zero rating, which is free products, or stopping companies from giving you stuff away for free, the government is not serious about really solving this problem.
All right, folks.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Filter Buy.
Love these guys.
Thanks for the email I got.
You know who you are.
Sent me the email last night.
Said they went to Filter Buy to get their air filter for their house.
They said it was 20% cheaper than another discount company out there.
I said, I told you we don't mess around.
You know the air you're breathing indoors.
Studies have shown there's a hundred times greater air pollution than the air outdoors.
You have pollen, you have allergy-inducing pollutants in the air.
And we spend 90% of our time indoors.
I do.
I have really atrocious allergies.
That's why I loved having these guys on board at Filterbuy.
Filterbuy.com will send you the size you need for your air filter within 24 hours plus free shipping.
You a commercial business?
You have a hundred air filters?
They got you.
You a house?
You got two air filters?
They got you too.
FilterBuy uses double the industry standard MERV rating on most filter sizes.
Get all that junk out of the air.
We're not going to get into the technical stuff because I don't want to bore you to death, but the pollen, excuse me, pollen, mold, dust, other allergy aggravators, get them out of the air.
FilterBuy filters take care of that for you.
All their filters are manufactured right here in America.
They can ship any size, folks, and at any quantity.
Save 5% when you set up order delivery.
It's a lot.
Never think about air filters again.
Go to filterbuy.com today and get the best price on top of quality filters shipped within 24 hours plus free shipping.
Filterbuy.com.
That's filterbuy.com.
And thanks again to everyone out there that supports our sponsors, whether it's ManCrates or Filterbuy.
I really, really, really appreciate it.
I mean, you guys and ladies out there make us look very, very good.
Joe knows in front of our sponsor.
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
All right.
Two more stories here.
Alright, this one's a good one because I know whenever I say this name it always fascinates our audience.
So George Soros.
Soros, who's a known left-wing billionaire agitator.
Soros is a proponent of higher taxes and bigger government.
If you haven't heard of George Soros, S-O-R-O-S, please look him up.
He is literally a billionaire left-wing agitator constantly fighting to increase your taxes, increase your government, and bankrupt the country.
That's just what Soros does.
Now, I saw this story.
It's in The Guardian.
It'll be in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Please check it out.
Also, that Obamacare story will be there as well.
Maybe subscriber only.
Again, apologies in advance, but what am I going to do?
What are you going to do?
I want to put it in there.
But there's an article in The Guardian about Soros is now shielding $18 billion.
Oh, my girl.
She's got such a cute face.
You're cute.
You know that?
You know you're cute?
Shaking her head.
Soros Joe is shielding 18 billion dollars of his assets in a foundation which shields them from taxes.
Now, in case you think I'm making this up, this is not from the Guardian piece, this is from Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal today.
He says, talking about this $18 billion, Joe, that if you put these appreciated assets in a private foundation, you also may deduct 20% of their market value on Soros' personal return, carrying forward the deduction for five years.
It's a double write-off, and he calls it the sweetest deal in the tax code.
Now, just to be crystal clear, so we know where we're going with this, I am categorically not arguing for higher taxes on rich people, even people like George Soros, who is a devout leftist.
I am not.
What I'm suggesting to you is that Soros is a hypocrite and a liar.
Now why?
Let's walk through simple logic and reason here.
Soros is a left-wing agitator whose entire life revolves around on the political ideological side, not the business side.
Growing government and the, Joe, supposed philanthropic benevolent actions of higher taxes on society.
In other words, more simply, pay higher taxes, it's good for all of us.
That's what he is, right Joe?
He's a left-wing agitator.
Pay higher taxes, it's a good thing.
Correct.
Now Joe, don't you find it awfully odd that he took an enormous swath of his wealth, 18 billion dollars, in a private foundation, using charitable rules to hide it from said taxes?
Wait, wait, wait!
Wait, wait, time out.
Rewind.
I thought your principles, your guiding principles, your advocacy, everything you believed in, was that it's not about charity, it's about taxes.
Joe, am I wrong here?
No, you're not wrong.
You're suggesting here, George, if I may call you that.
I don't really care if you think I should call you that.
I'm just going to call you George.
George, you're suggesting that we should all pay higher taxes, not engage in personal charity, mutual aid societies, or anything else on our own.
The government can do better with it, yet you're using 18 billions of your dollars.
You're using a tax code precisely to avoid paying taxes, to give it to a foundation you're claiming is charitable.
There must be some sort of mistake.
There is absolutely not!
By the way, the article I have is from the Guardian, which is a left-leaning paper.
I'm pretty sure.
The Daily Mail is the center, center-right one.
Folks, this is utterly outrageous!
What, I don't understand what, this is the argument I constantly have with the left.
If you sincerely believe that taxes and paying more money to the government is a force for public good, can I just, to the liberals listening and to conservatives who are playing this for their liberal friends, just please answer this question in a yes or no, if you can.
I understand yes or no questions are uncomfortable.
I've been subjected to them sometimes, but I really want to make this simple.
Are you saying that higher taxes and the paying of higher taxes are a force for public good?
Yes or no?
I'll give you a second.
Okay, thank you.
I'm assuming if you're an honest liberal, and you can actually answer a question, that you just said yes.
So if the answer is yes, why do you, and maybe some of you do voluntarily pay more, but the numbers show that the probability of that is extremely low, so I'm very comfortable saying this.
The chances of you doing that, paying more voluntarily in taxes, are almost none, because I know the numbers, and very few people do it.
So you don't pay more in higher taxes.
As a matter of fact, George Soros just started a foundation to not pay higher taxes, to donate the money to a charity, which is really a liberal advocacy group show, by the way.
It's nothing to do with charity.
But let's just even give him the benefit of the doubt.
He just hid $18 billion of his money legally.
I'm not accusing a man of a crime.
He avoided paying taxes on it to give it to a charity and not the government.
How does that jive with your philosophy?
Now, I know your comeback, because I've engaged in this debate many times, and I've exposed liberal tomfoolery in the past.
You'll say, well, my small amount of money isn't going to make a difference, so we have to force everybody else to do it.
Um, okay, I guess, but that logic doesn't work for conservatives, and the reason is conservatives are principled.
Let me give you an example, Joe.
We go to church every week.
We rarely miss.
I'm not applauding, I'm just telling you as an example of my personal life, so you don't think conservatives speak with forked tongue.
We give a relatively small amount of money.
We don't give a ton of money every week in the offering, but we give, you know, it's a good amount over the course of the year.
But again, it's not a fortune.
I have absolutely no doubt that my money, the money I give is not going to change the world, Joe.
None.
It is not going to eradicate poverty tomorrow.
But yet I know it can be a force for public good in the right hands given to people who are struggling.
So I do it, and as I know you do as well.
I do.
Does anybody force you to do it, Joe?
No.
I do it on my own.
Just to be clear with the audience, in your employment agreement with WCBM or conservative review, right?
Right.
Anywhere it says it, does it say you have to give money in your church every Sunday?
Nowhere.
Nowhere at all.
Nowhere.
So Joe, you just do it because it's the right thing.
Exactly.
Now we believe it's the right thing, Jo, because we believe in helping people who are poor.
So do you see how liberals are total frauds now?
No one forces us to do it at all.
We do it because we believe, even in a small way, big changes are made by small people.
And I don't mean small in character, but I mean small people and small gestures collectively sourced over time, right?
But when you ask liberals about taxes, and by the way 18 billion taxable is not a small amount by the way at all, George.
You could really change the world with that a little bit, but he's not!
And liberals do nothing to voluntarily pay higher taxes.
Matter of fact, people like John Kerry and other prominent Democrats, Charlie Rangel, have engaged in tax avoidance where they don't even want to pay the taxes they owe.
They use legal maneuvers to get around paying taxes.
How does that, please answer me how that doesn't make you a hypocrite?
I'm not kidding.
I really want to know how that doesn't make you a hypocrite.
How you need other people to act and pay higher taxes before you can do a public good.
How?
We don't.
We don't need that.
I don't.
No one's forcing me to do it.
I do it because it's the right thing.
If you believe taxes are the quote right thing, pay more.
Email George Soros and say, George, I really don't think that's a good idea.
We've argued for years that charity is not really a good thing, that the government can do it better.
I think you should make that taxable income.
Go ahead.
CC me on the email to George Soros's foundation.
I'd love to see it.
No, I'm not kidding.
Have some principles and stand up for something.
All right, last story of the day.
I'll put this at the show notes, too.
It's a really, really good story from National Review.
Great story.
I really appreciate the author writing this thing, because he really breaks it down in really simple terms.
Who is the author on this?
I hate when I don't pull these things up.
National Review, if you guys are listening, I know we have a couple people.
On the site, who listen to my show, who work for the site.
You have a glitch in your site.
When you pull up an article... No, I'm not kidding, if you're listening, because I really like your site.
When you pull up an article, if you leave it open long enough, it switches back to the homepage.
I don't know if that's a glitch or done by... You know, done intentionally, but it's super annoying, because you can't... You know, I try to go back to stuff to give the authors credit, and I can't.
So now, you know, now I can't give the author credit.
But I'll still talk about the piece, and I'll link it in the show notes anyway.
This guy writes this piece about social security and young Americans.
Now, I know I'm gonna get emails on this.
I get it.
I mean, outside of the death penalty and net neutrality shows, the social security thing was, I mean, it was like a tidal wave coming ashore.
It was like that movie Deep Impact when, what is it, Taya Leone and the dad are sitting on the shore and the tidal wave's coming.
I get it.
Again, for the 15,000th time, I'm not suggesting people 55 and older should be subjected to social security restrictions because you did pay in and you were screwed.
And the government should make good on its promises.
We are the government.
We promised you something, you paid into it, and we basically screwed you over.
But we should do our best to pay that out.
55 and younger folks, I'm sorry.
It is a bad deal.
It is a horrendous deal.
Then this author at National Review makes a really terrific case with actual numbers, something I know the left is allergic to.
Point number one, Joe.
One of the leftist arguments they make in defending social security is that, oh, you know what, it's 12.4% of payroll tax.
Folks, think about that.
You're paying over 10% of your income to social security that's not even going to be there when you get older, if you're in your 20s.
10% of your income is being just flushed down the toilet bowl right now.
Now, it's actually 12.4, it's even more, but I'm being generous.
One of the leftist arguments is, oh, that's not true.
Half of it's paid by the employer and half of it's paid by the employee.
Ah, no, you'd be wrong.
If you read the piece, the author links to a study by the Brookings Institution, a center-left, left, not right, center-left organization that shows that, no, that's actually not true.
The 12.4% is largely paid by the employee.
Because why, Joe?
When WCBM or Conservative Review hires me or Joe, I'm an employee over there and they pay social security taxes, they factor that tax in and they take it out of your pay!
So you're paying!
There's no money fairy!
So again, that's a nonsense bunk argument debunked by a left-leaning institute.
You pay the 12.4%, the employer just takes it out of your salary.
Okay?
Point number two.
They're like, well, it's safety and security over time.
You know, social security, because the government provides it.
Really?
The Urban Institute, Joe, who we've cited before, the Urban Institute, again, another left-leaning organization, the Urban Institute, has shown that over time, He puts the numbers in the piece, that if you were a normal American citizen working for $45,000 to $50,000 a year and putting in money, you'd put in about $470,000 and you would get back something like $560,000.
Now you may say, oh, well that's 22% over 43 years.
No, no, not 22% per year.
$470,000 and you would get back something like $560,000.
Now you may say, "Oh, well that's 22% over 43 years."
No, no, not 22% per year.
That's 22% over 43 years, folks.
You may say, "Well, that doesn't sound too bad."
Really?
You know what you would have got just in standard market returns?
You would have gotten 1.3 million.
And the difference is there'd be actual money there.
Remember, the money they're giving you is taken from your grandkids.
There's no money.
Social Security's totally bankrupt.
It's completely bankrupt.
They are relying on IOUs.
If you use GAAP accounting, generally accepted accounting principles used in the business world, Social Security is beyond bankrupt.
But they don't get to use that GAAP account, and they get to use government accounting, which is just fake news math.
There's no money there.
So even worse, you would get double the return, and you'd actually have the money.
This is from the Urban Institute, Joe!
You would get twice as much!
But again, you'll still have people defend Social Security because they are absolutely allergic to facts and data, and they never do the what's next, just as in the Obamacare story, where they first start thinking, oh, the government, the government will give you money, the government will do it, you give the government money, they'll give it to you back later.
They never say, okay, what happened after that?
Just like the Obamacare readmission thing.
Well, people died.
Well, what happened after Social Security was instituted?
Oh, the government was bankrupted and people got half the money they would have gotten ordinarily, and then it went bankrupt and nobody got anything.
Keep defending it, folks.
Keep defending this bankrupt, broken program.
It's a mess.
And if you're a young kid listening to my show, read the piece.
Screenshot it and show it to all your liberal friends and say, this is the Urban Institute, a left-leaning research site.
How do you explain this away?
They have nothing to say.
It's ridiculous.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving.
Please go to bongino.com, sign up for my email list.
I will email you these articles every day in your inbox.
They're really cool pieces.
I hunt the internet to find the best ones for you.
Thanks for everything, man.
Appreciate it.
And, well, man, I'll see you all on Monday.
Hey, by the way, one more thing.
Sorry, Joe.
Yeah.
Joe usually does cut it off by then.
I'll be in for Mark Levin tonight, so please tune in.
We have a really killer show planned.
I'll see y'all then.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
